It is interesting to note that the "Right to Work" doesn't mean that you can go to a company and be guaranteed a job, and the income that goes with it.
'Right to Work' and Right to Employment
Printable View
-
07-28-2007, 05:24 PMdanielpalos'Right to Work' and Right to Employment
-
07-29-2007, 09:34 AMcbgRe: What Is A 'Right to Work' State
Why should it? How is any employer going to stay in business, if they're required to hire and provide an income to everyone who applies? If they have one opening and get 300 applications (not even remotely unlikely) and they're required to hire all 300 of them, what kind of an income do you think they'd be able to supply?
Right to work refers to union membership. Period.
http://www.nrtw.org/rtws.htm -
07-29-2007, 01:37 PMdanielpalosRe: What Is A 'Right to Work' State
I suppose, I am merely quibbling over how some legislation is worded. Wouldn't it be more accurate (from a truth in advertising perspective) to call such legislation, "A right to circumvent unions for political purposes for work state"?
-
08-01-2007, 03:11 PMdeadlockRe: 'Right to Work' and Right to Employment
Daniel,
Do you remember the movie "Reds"? -
08-05-2007, 07:38 PMcbgRe: 'Right to Work' and Right to Employment
Are you saying that people should be forced to join unions against their will?
-
08-06-2007, 07:05 PMjkRe: 'Right to Work' and Right to EmploymentI will agree that people should be allowed to not join the union as long as the union does not have to represent that person in any way, including letting that person negotiate for their own pay scale and benefits, and they are not entitled to any union provided benefits.Quote:
Quoting cbg
I do not agree with the position that the employee must be represented by the union even though they do not pay to support that union (I know, it is not a free ride totally but it is still more than it ever should be). The employee should simply be left to hang and dry by the union when there is aproblem but the laws do not allow for that.
So, yes, as it stands, I do believe that a person should be required to join a union if it is a union shop.
cbg; have you been through a labor history class? It seems that most folks do not understand that many of our current labor laws are as a result of the unions lobbying for then. This includes child labor laws, a 40 hour work week with overtime after that, OSHA and the many other safety orgnizations that require an employer to provide a reasonably safe place of employment, workmans compensation, and on and on and on and....
and yes, I am a union member currently (IBEW), and have been a member of the Teamsters, the UAW, and the Retail Clerks Union as well. -
08-07-2007, 09:50 AMcbgRe: 'Right to Work' and Right to Employment
I'm familiar with the history of labor unions, yes.
And nowhere did I say that an employee who does not join the union should be represented by that union. -
08-07-2007, 01:17 PMjkRe: 'Right to Work' and Right to EmploymentI know you didn't and I did not mean to infer that you did. It is just that most "right to work"'ers do argue that the unions must still fight for the rights of the non-members, which by law, they must do, to an extent.Quote:
Quoting cbg
So what happens is, yes, some people are forced to join unions against their will and although I generally do not support a person to be forced to so much of anything, until the required support of non-union members is removed, then yes, I do believe people should be forced to join a union, if there is one at their place of employment.
One must always remember; the union is there because at one time, the majority of the workers voted to have union representation. Just as I must pay taxes I do not agree with and a million other things I must accept, regardless whether I want them or not, the majority had decided that is what they want and it should be they way it is until it is voted out. -
08-08-2007, 01:47 AMcbgRe: 'Right to Work' and Right to Employment
I partially agree and partially do not.
I do not think that anyone should be forced to join a union who does not want to. In many ways some unions (note: I do not say all) have become what they were formed to prevent. There are good ones and there are bad ones; however, when you get a job you don't get to choose your union. The one that's there, is there until it's voted out. So since you can't choose your union, I don't believe you should be forced to join it.
However, I think that if you opt out, you should not expect any representation or benefits from them. If you opt out, it's total; you're on your own.
I realize this would mean a change to the law, and as I said I am well aware of the history of labor unions; why they were formed and what they have accomplished. But it's a completely different culture now and a lot of what was acceptable then, is no longer socially acceptable now. You can give the unions credit for this and you might even be right. But I don't think our current society is going to revert to that of a hundred years ago because someone is given a choice of whether to join a union or not.
I am the granddaughter of a lifetime UAW worker; some of my husband's clients are labor unions; my first job after college was working with fifteen labor unions and their benefit plans; when my neighbor died I was very favorably impressed by how well the union looked after his family. I am not anti-union per se, even if I do work in HR. But being a Massachusetts liberal I am all in favor of individual choice. -
08-08-2007, 01:04 PMdeadlockRe: 'Right to Work' and Right to Employment
Sorry but just how exactly does one "opt out" of receiving benefits of unions by not joining when as an employee they already receive all the benefits that Union has worked to achieve?
I think as a member of a union you can legally choose not to pay dues for anything other than costs of the union collective bargaining. -
08-08-2007, 02:15 PMcbgRe: 'Right to Work' and Right to Employment
In my hypothetical, the employee who opts out of union membership would not receive the benefits provided by the CBA, but whatever benefits the employer offers, if any, to non-union members.
We're not talking about what the law is by now, but what we think it should be. -
08-08-2007, 02:45 PMdeadlockRe: 'Right to Work' and Right to Employment
Thank you. I did not catch that when I first read your statement.
It is a very complex system and I can only say that I received much more as a member of a union for federal employers than I could have imagined.
There are many issues that make being a professional and a union member complicated, like a walk-out. I never experienced that as a union member. As a non-union member, required as a manager in a state institution (I was not able to be a part of a bargaining unit) I was faced with a walk out and taking care of 28 patients by myself.
Daniel has not returned so I have no idea what he meant by saying
:confused:Quote:
"A right to circumvent unions for political purposes for work state"?
-
08-08-2007, 07:10 PMjkRe: 'Right to Work' and Right to EmploymentYou can refuse to pay towards any political work performed by the union. That is why my union (IBEW) has a seperate fund that you would choose to pay into if desired. It removes any other withdrawal in part.Quote:
Quoting deadlock
BTW; we have a no strike (which would include a walk out) clause in our contract. We have found it to be damaging to both parties and ultimately fails to provide the intended purpose. Please understand that my union situation is not "typical" as most see a union. Our local has a contract with approximately 50 contractors in our jurisdiction and I can literally work for any one of them and be afforded the same benefits, work rules, and pay scale. One of the greatest bene's is that my health and welfare bene;'s and any pension or savings plan is not employer specific and travels with me to any of those contractors. As a matter of fact, due to the national level of the IBEW, I can work for any IBEW associated contractor nationwide and have the bene payments returned to my local and put into my retirement accounts and pay my H & W financial obligations.
this gets back to the choice of the majority. The union involved is who it is. It would be similar to saying you should be able to choose what insurer you employer subscribes to. Of course you cannot do that if you simply want BCBS instead of Hartford insurance.Quote:
The one that's there, is there until it's voted out. So since you can't choose your union, I don't believe you should be forced to join it.
Do you really think so? I work around many union and non-union tradesman. I see many of the non-union tradesman coerced to perform unsafe actions and fear loss of employment should they protest. Many companies I see are eliminating benefits left and right totally at the employers discretion. Most of you have seen the abuse of workers in terms of lack of respect in areas such as at least some minimal notification of overtime, no lunch periods, or ever and always changing work rules. A CBA simply puts rules in place so everybody is aware of what the rules are. An employer cannot simply walk up and say, "well, today, you are not going to get lunch" or " I need you to go out and buy $5000 worth of tools so you can continue to work. I am tired of buying the tools required for me to be a contractor" and such. It is not only safety and benefits but it affords a modicum of respect for the employee.Quote:
But it's a completely different culture now and a lot of what was acceptable then, is no longer socially acceptable now.
I have seen how quickly an employer can revert to the old standards, even if it is still illegal. Without the contnued fight of the unions, I have no doubt the American way of life would erode very quickly (like it isn;t already).
Wal-Mart is a perfect expample of how quickly an employer will revert to pre-union style employment. (yes, I do not like how Wal-Mart treats their employees.) Remember the "life insurance on the employees with Walmart as the bene debacle"? The "hey, I know you are off the clock but can you go and finish this before you leave the strore and I am not going to pay you scam"?
They have attempted to evade financial responsibility for on the job injuries from what was related to me by some Wal-Mart employees.
Their actions at the recently union organized and subsequently closed store in Canada, from what I understand, may violate NLRB regs if it were an American store.
They used to (maybe still do, I don;t know) refer to their employees as their "family". If my family treated me like Wal-Mart treats their employees, I would disown them.
It would not take long for things to go downhill very fast should that little thorn known as the union labor supporters dissappear. -
08-08-2007, 10:35 PMcbgRe: 'Right to Work' and Right to Employment
That's your opinion. Mine is different.
-
08-09-2007, 03:14 PMjkRe: 'Right to Work' and Right to Employmentopinion?Quote:
Quoting cbg
The only part of that entire post that was opinion was the last line. Everything else is factual. The anecdotal evidence supports my opinion. -
08-10-2007, 10:40 AMcbgRe: 'Right to Work' and Right to Employment
I'm not going to keep arguing this. I really doubt that if employees were allowed to choose whether or not they could join a union, suddenly the FLSA and the laws regarding workers comp and unemployment and other protections would be repealed.
-
08-10-2007, 11:06 AMmoburkesRe: 'Right to Work' and Right to Employment
Where did the OP go?
-
08-10-2007, 04:48 PMjkRe: 'Right to Work' and Right to EmploymentSorry cbg. Didn't really mean to argue with you. I tend to look to your more as person I can learn from and debate (as opposed to an argument). It is just that I see this situation as eroding the rights and benefits my father and his forefathers have fought for. In some cases, men were even killed to try to stop unionization.Quote:
Quoting cbg
No, I do not believe anything will happen suddenly. Change tends to be more subdued, even undertaken covertly yet intentionally. What happens is people wake up one day and look around and say "when did this happen?". By then, it is too late.
Don't know. I was too busy driving my own agenda. :oQuote:
moburkes
Where did the OP go?
-
08-11-2007, 03:22 PMcbgRe: 'Right to Work' and Right to Employment
And forcing an employee into a union, instead of allowing them to choose, is what they died for?
Somehow I see that as contrary to the general premise this country was based on. -
08-11-2007, 03:28 PMjkRe: 'Right to Work' and Right to EmploymentI understand your point. It is to bad we do not live in a perfect world. We simply disagree as to the best way to improve it with the limitations we currently have.Quote:
Quoting cbg
-
08-12-2007, 03:35 AMcbgRe: 'Right to Work' and Right to Employment
As long as you can see my point, I'll drop it here. :) We can respectfully disagree.
-
08-21-2007, 07:37 PMdanielpalosRe: 'Right to Work' and Right to EmploymentI was only making a satirical analogy and contrasting it with actual legal principles.Quote:
Quoting deadlock
-
08-21-2007, 07:49 PMdeadlockRe: 'Right to Work' and Right to EmploymentWhere did Mo go??Quote:
Quoting moburkes
-
08-21-2007, 08:27 PMcissycicleRe: 'Right to Work' and Right to EmploymentLooking for Larry and Curly?Quote:
Quoting deadlock
-
08-21-2007, 08:43 PMdeadlockRe: 'Right to Work' and Right to EmploymentThought she lost her "MoJoe". :DQuote:
Quoting cissycicle
-
08-21-2007, 10:31 PMdanielpalosRe: 'Right to Work' and Right to EmploymentA form of at-will unemployment could reduce the need for the protection of a union. From a purely economic perspective, reducing the number of couch potatoes actively competing for employment should increase the demand for the remaining (more motivated or efficient) labor market participants.Quote:
Quoting jk
This type of policy can also reduce the incentive for less efficient forms of providing for the general Welfare, since it would be at-will. -
08-22-2007, 03:20 AMjkRe: 'Right to Work' and Right to EmploymentHow naive can you be. First, this idea of your at-will unemployment simply not a realistic idea. Americans (can't speak for other nations) tend to be a lazy group of people. Not to knock all of them but in a great sense, they are lazy. If you were willing to simply pay a person whenever they want to not work, you would have so many applicants that those left working would never be able to sustain the payments to the leaches.Quote:
danielpalos;123421]A form of at-will unemployment could reduce the need for the protection of a union. From a purely economic perspective, reducing the number of couch potatoes actively competing for employment should increase the demand for the remaining (more motivated or efficient) labor market participants.
Now, the at-will unemployment will cause a lot of problems very similar to what communism in the USSR did. To the lower paid classes, there will be no incentive to work. In the USSR it was because they effectively could not be fired so they had no incentive to do a good job. In your utopia, those that are simply not paid enough or did not like their boss one day, or had an arguement with the spouse that morning, would simply quite work as long as they knew they could collect your at-will unemployment. In either case, ther is no dedication to your employment because there is no real incentive to work hard. So, in your world, you will pay them more, but where is this money coming from. Market economics tend to set prices and wages, not the individual employer. Unless the market will allow this increase in wages, we will still have a minimum wage type situation.
Ya, like our current welfare system? Those that know how to play the game do quite well (at least as far as their intent) making our welfare system an at-will situation rather than a need based system.Quote:
This type of policy can also reduce the incentive for less efficient forms of providing for the general Welfare, since it would be at-will.
IT WON'T WORK, Daniel. -
08-22-2007, 05:02 AMdeadlockRe: 'Right to Work' and Right to EmploymentYour response appears to be a cut and paste repetitive response.Quote:
This type of policy can also reduce the incentive for less efficient forms of providing for the general Welfare, since it would be at-will.
Please investigate how our Federal Government already has in place in system to effectively manipulate the economy with the workforce.
You have a theory but don't know how to explain it or how it would work to improve anything or change anything in place.
The topic that you have selected to develop lacks any real statistics.
I asked about experience with the Constitution in that it doesn't appear you understand civil rights, unions, and how they effectively prevent someone from being wrongfully terminated.
I am not suggesting someone isn't wrongfully terminated. But there are those persons who are too lazy to use the system in place. -
08-22-2007, 06:33 AMdeadlockRe: 'Right to Work' and Right to Employment
Welfare is a program used to supplement persons income for those at poverty level. It never was or currently is a program to support people not working. No one could exist on the maximum Wefare benefits.
-
08-22-2007, 07:39 AMsummit425Re: 'Right to Work' and Right to Employment
good job!!!!
-
08-22-2007, 01:21 PMdanielpalosRe: 'Right to Work' and Right to EmploymentCan you cite any research that implies that normal market forces will suddenly cease to exist, if the public sector provides a safety net that complies with the theory of supply and demand?Quote:
Quoting jk
How are you arriving at your conclusion? Anecdotal evidence from the agricultural sector, implies that forms of "corporate" welfare, for the legal fiction of an individual, have the potential to do the opposite of what you suggest would happen. -
08-22-2007, 01:24 PMdanielpalosRe: 'Right to Work' and Right to EmploymentI have already looked into this. I use simple metrics to determine the validity of our current programs: the poverty rate and the unemployment rate.Quote:
Quoting deadlock
If our current public policies worked, we would have zero official unemployment and poverty, since individuals would have recourse to a minimum wage that would prevent it. -
08-22-2007, 02:04 PMdanielpalosRe: 'Right to Work' and Right to EmploymentWhy do you consider at-will employment to be a bad thing?Quote:
Quoting jk
Wouldn't the employment sector be better off, if they didn't have to hire less motivated or less efficient labor market participants, in the first place? -
08-22-2007, 02:42 PMcloudnineRe: 'Right to Work' and Right to Employmentat-will employment isn't a bad thing. Your theory of at-will UNemployment is a bad thing. jk is stating that it would be stupid to pay people who just feel like not working. At-will employment helps get rid of people in the workplace that don't do their job, so why would we want to reward those fired for such reasons? It's a stupid concept.Quote:
Quoting danielpalos
-
08-22-2007, 03:00 PMjkRe: 'Right to Work' and Right to EmploymentDon't you get it?Quote:
Quoting danielpalos
They don;t have to hire the less motivatred or less efficient now, and if they do as a temporary measure or discover they did unintentionally, they can get rid of them due to the at-will employment laws we now have. -
08-22-2007, 03:09 PMdanielpalosRe: 'Right to Work' and Right to EmploymentHow are you arriving at your conclusion? Anecdotal evidence from the agricultural sector, implies that forms of "corporate" welfare, for the legal fiction of an individual, have the potential to do the opposite of what you suggest would happen.Quote:
Quoting cloudnine
How does your view account for the doctrine of at-will employment for the individual?
Our current programs do not comply with the theory of supply and demand. Market friendly public policy could be used to reduce public and private sector costs, and ameliorate the effects of poverty that are the result of a simple lack of income and due to inefficiencies in specific markets. -
08-22-2007, 03:13 PMdanielpalosRe: 'Right to Work' and Right to EmploymentHow do you account for gains (in a form of division of labor) from not having to divert private sector resources to less motivated individuals, in the first place? (e.g. in the form of an economic fiction: Mr. Adam Smith was kind enough to sort them out for us).Quote:
Quoting jk
-
08-22-2007, 03:19 PMcloudnineRe: 'Right to Work' and Right to EmploymentSo it's been proven that it makes sense to pay lazy people to do nothing? Show me your sources.Quote:
Quoting danielpalos
What is it that you don't understand?? At-will employment allows employers to maintain their workforce or get rid of the lollygaggers if they so choose. It also allows for the employee to leave their job whenever they feel like it if they don't like the job or if it doesn't meet their standards. YOUR idea of at-will UNemployment would allow those workers that employers fire for not working a free ride. That would be paying them to do nothing. And it would also allow people to quit their jobs because, hey, why work for money when you can get it for doing nothing. Which I'll say again, is a stupid concept.Quote:
How does your view account for the doctrine of at-will employment for the individual?
-
08-22-2007, 03:20 PMseniorjudgeRe: 'Right to Work' and Right to EmploymentHere is your question translated into Standard English:Quote:
Quoting danielpalos
Q: Wouldn't an employer be better off if he didn't have to hire bums in the first place?
A: Sometimes you don't know they are bums till after you hire them. -
08-22-2007, 03:24 PMcloudnineRe: 'Right to Work' and Right to EmploymentThank you sj. And this again, is in favor of at-will employment which is something this guy can't seem to understand.Quote:
Quoting seniorjudge